Energy

Marc Lefkowitz has an excellent post on GreenCityBlueLake, picking up and running with the regional energy agenda in exactly the way Richard Stuebi and I had hoped would happen. (Don’t be surprised if GCBL becomes the “home base” for the Advanced Energy Strategy for the region…).

You should read the entire post for yourself (and then get involved in the GCBL site directly), but I feel compelled to present a two brief snippets here to whet your appetite. Lefkowitz opens with this:

“Topping the Northeast Ohio energy agenda could be the creation of ‘green’ building codes. With industry tightening down on energy consumption, energy-efficient building design is poised to make the largest impact on our energy use. Buildings account for nearly 50 percent of the nation’s energy consumption, and the highest percentage of greenhouse gas emissions.”

In other words, our air quality issues aren’t just about planes, trains, and automobiles alone.

A little later, Lefkowitz presents this thought:

“Ohio now has a residential energy code requirement that is essentially a performance code, but it is ‘like a large anchor which builders hang on to as an excuse for not doing more,’ says local green building expert Jim LaRue… Inspiring examples of greening up building codes exist (mostly in Europe). Fingal County in Ireland recently passed legislation requiring all new buildings to draw 30 percent on renewable energy and to not consume more than 50 kWh/m2 (twice the standard of most homes), LaRue adds.”

Education

Meanwhile, the New York Times has an article today on Why American College Students Hate Science. Now, you might think at first blush that this story has no connection or relevance to the regional energy story. But in true NY Times fashion, the headline completely misrepresents the content of the article. Students don’t hate science—they hate the way science is being taught.

As proof, the article cites an example of a school that is successfully teaching kids science:
“The University of Maryland, Baltimore County, opened for business in a former cow pasture not far from downtown just 40 years ago. Still in its infancy as universities go, U.M.B.C. is less well known than Maryland’s venerable flagship campus at College Park or the blue-blooded giant Johns Hopkins. But the upstart campus in the pasture is rocking the house when it comes to the increasingly critical mission of turning American college students into scientists.”

Hmmm…an “upstart” university in a “cow pasture” that is “less well known “ than a neighboring blue-blooded giant. None of that is relevant to our situation in Ohio, now, is it?

The Times goes on to explain why, in a description that is eerily similar to the descriptions used to explain the success of the FIRST Robotics program NASA Glenn sponsors here in our region. Explaining how the school’s Meyerhoff Scholar’s Program works, the Times observes that “students are encouraged to study in groups and taught to solve complex problems collectively, as teams of scientists do. Most important, they are quickly exposed to cutting-edge science in laboratory settings, which demystifies the profession and gives them early access to work that often leads to early publication in scientific journals. At the same time, however, the students are pushed to perform at the highest level. Those who earn C’s, for example, are encouraged to repeat those courses so they can master basic concepts before moving on.

“The laboratory approach keeps the students excited and prevents them from drifting off into less challenging disciplines. Indeed, according to Science, 86 percent of the Meyerhoff participants have graduated with science or engineering degrees. Nearly 9 in 10 of those graduates went on to graduate or professional programs, with a significant number earning M.D.’s or Ph.D’s, or both.”

And here’s the real kicker: “The higher education establishment is generally startled to learn that more than half of the high-flying Meyerhoff students are black. This surprise stems from the unstated but nonetheless well-established belief that high-performing science students don’t actually exist in the black community.”

Let your imagination run wild for a moment: We have serious issues in our education system here in the region. We have significant issues related to our air and water quality, and we have a growing interest in re-inventing the region around scientific and technological principles that support the creation of sustainable systems and businesses. What’s stopping us from addressing all of these issues simultaneously?

Why wouldn’t we revamp our educational system to mimic the way the Meyerhoff program works (at both the K-12 and college levels), and have at least some portion of those students actively engaged in laboratory work in which “the lab” is our very own region, its buildings, brownfields, rivers and lakes?

What’s to stop us from creating the “Woods Hole of fresh water” right here in Northeast Ohio, and training our own young people (and the others who would flock here from around the nation and the world) for the opportunity to be the leading experts in these emerging fields?

Hey, it’s not like we have anything to lose by trying—other than the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the children we raise.